Talk:Circumcision#Circ.2FHIV table

Of course it is not updated, anything not in favour of circumcision you will try to ignore it at best, News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection.

Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-84

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-85

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-85

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-86

the numbers are kinda contradicting. lets use 1000 procedures as the comparator

I use the who scale for med side effects because we need some standard to compare.

Very common, ≥ 1⁄10 (10% or higher)

Common (frequent), 1⁄10 to 1⁄100 {1% to 10%)

Uncommon (infrequent), 1⁄100 to 1⁄1000 (0,1% up to 1%)

Rare, 1⁄1000 to 1⁄10000 (0,01% to 0,1%)

Very rare, < 1⁄10000 (lower than 0,01$)

>The most common acute complications[...]These complications occur in approximately 0.13% of procedures, with bleeding being the most common acute complication in the United States. Minor complications are reported to occur in three percent of procedures.

so 0,13% are 1,3 procedures in 1000 (so uncommon/infrequent if we use the who scale for adverse effects in medications)

3%, are 3/100 or 30 in 1000 which is already common/frequent not rare. That would be minor complications, so acute and post surgery.

this implies that either 29 of 1000 will develop complication after the surgery or the numbrs have a variation of like factor 1-30. thats a lot)

most common should describe 3% not 0,13%

>Severe complications are rare. A specific complication rate is difficult to determine due to scant data on complications and inconsistencies in their classification.

This part starts by using terms that suggest issues are more rare after already showing they're not, then excuses that the data is bad. Maybe a comparison with other local anaesthetic surgical procedures might me helpful so that the risks are described accurately

Maybe this also should be at the beginning of the paragraph. With an explanation who cites them and what from. Because we also have

>Significant acute complications happen rarely, occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States.

thats 2 in 1000, so meaning 0,2% So 1. thats uncommon, not rare.

this means that a child has a higher risk of SIGNIFICANT acute complications (0,2%) than mild acute coplications?(0,13%)

So i think the bit about issues with reliability of numbers should lead the paragraph, it should explain that because of the lack of official standardised measures of complications, one paper counted more significant acute complications (meanin the might need surgical correction) than another study counted mild ones.

i hope those are two different papers, I didnt ccheck.

And as this is a medical topic I do think that a consistent terminilogy about the occurance of complications should be used, sing the same language for numbers that can vary this much feels kinda manipulative and I would hope thats not the case. 178.8.231.70 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:What do reliable sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It should say "For adult medical circumcision, superficial wound healing takes up to a week, and complete healing 4 to 6 weeks." Not 4 to 6 months, it's never been months only weeks. Kunaiwastaken (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:there are different stages to healing. deeper healing process, the remodeling of scar tissue, and maturation of scar tissue, takes several months. Avy42 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe this should be clarified further then? It sounds to be 3 distinct stages, 1 week of superficial wound healing, 4 - 6 weeks of deeper healing, then months after are the points you made. The reason I initially commented was due the fact that specifically *4 - 6* was used, as that is very bluntly what most sources use as a baseline for: stitches disolving, no sex or masturbation, etc. To me, using 4 - 6 here looks like a misinterpretation of what you'll find online. Kunaiwastaken (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)